IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 924 of 2024 Date of Decision: 4.1.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ravinder Chand ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Abhishek Jain and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Kuldeep Thakur and Bhupinder Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 19.10.2023, rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7890 of 2023 (Ravinder Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), whereby coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 2 31.5.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2108 of 2023 and judgment dated 19.9.2023 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6611 of 2023, within eight weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though he has every reason to presume that by now, judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be positively complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. January 4, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge